New Research

[Devonian]

Could you show this 'entire' change using this pie chart please, Peter!

By entire I mean to the whole. We have changed the composition of the whole atmosphere. As a proportion it is indeed an small amount but there is no doubt (as measurements show) that the entire atmosphere has been changed by us.

On your pie chart a hundred years ago Co2 would be .03%.

[UV-RAY]

By entire I mean to the whole. We have changed the composition of the whole atmosphere. As a proportion it is indeed an small amount but there is no doubt (as measurements show) that the entire atmosphere has been changed by us.

On your pie chart a hundred years ago Co2 would be .03%.

How have we changed it and by how much, can these changes be measured and if so can you demonstrate these changes? Edited August 23, 2012 by Seven of Nine

[Gray-Wolf]

How have we changed it and by how much, can these changes be measured and if so can you demonstrate these changes?

I think that any of the sites dealing with the atmosphere would be better placed to give you a full and detailed description? Remember it is not just the composition of the atmosphere but also how it works. Watch the areas of the Arctic that are open water this autumn both for the temp. profile through the depth of the atmosphere but also for the pressure system that is caused by the water shedding it's summer heat before refreeze can set in?

P.S. I'm not suggesting Dev isn't qualified to answer you but we all start our learning curve somewhere and I believe it easier to 'learn' than to be 'told'?

[UV-RAY]

How have we changed it and by how much, can these changes be measured and if so can you demonstrate these changes?

Just to add I don't believe any such changes can be measured, and the only thing that demonstrates any changes is speculative at best.

[UV-RAY]

I think that any of the sites dealing with the atmosphere would be better placed to give you a full and detailed description? Remember it is not just the composition of the atmosphere but also how it works. Watch the areas of the Arctic that are open water this autumn both for the temp. profile through the depth of the atmosphere but also for the pressure system that is caused by the water shedding it's summer heat before refreeze can set in?

P.S. I'm not suggesting Dev isn't qualified to answer you but we all start our learning curve somewhere and I believe it easier to 'learn' than to be 'told'?

I don't want to read biased reports and findings, as a laymen I want to see some actual observational evidence that can be identified as being responsible for warming, not just theorised evidence. Is there anything out there which can solely be used as evidence for being responsible for warming the planet?

[Devonian]

How have we changed it and by how much, can these changes be measured and if so can you demonstrate these changes?

To my satisfaction, and to that of science yes. Having read your other post I suspect not to yours .

Anyway, there is no reasonable doubt humanity is responsible for: the rise in atmospheric CO2 (see here for example), profound land use changes, black carbons (soot), cfc's, aerosols/smog. All these things have effects on the climate.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Devonian

[Waterspout]

I think I knew what you meant, Peter, but some might have assumed you meant the chemistry of the entire atmosphere!

Yes, the Carbon molecules have increased. They have a specific absorption spectrum, and saturation points. I think alot is known how Carbon acts in the laboratory, but not neccessarily in the entire 'atmosphere' where it competes with Water Vapour in alot of that absorption Spectrum.

I think this is why we are not seeing the proposed temperature response the models predicted back in the 90's - the sensitivity is almost certainly much less than what scientists might have us believe.

But, I might be wrong about that! After all renewed Invigorated Anthropogenic Global Warming is apparently expected from 2012 onwards, and I'll certainly acknowledge any new temperature response when I see it happen.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Waterspout

[Yozzer]

well thank you, that's all much clearer now...

[BornFromTheVoid]

Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica

Once thought to be devoid of life, the ice-covered parts of Antarctica are now known to be a reservoir of metabolically active microbial cells and organic carbon1. The potential for methanogenic archaea to support the degradation of organic carbon to methane beneath the ice, however, has not yet been evaluated. Large sedimentary basins containing marine sequences up to 14 kilometres thick2 and an estimated 21,000 petagrams (1 Pg equals 1015 g) of organic carbon are buried beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet. No data exist for rates of methanogenesis in sub-Antarctic marine sediments. Here we present experimental data from other subglacial environments that demonstrate the potential for overridden organic matter beneath glacial systems to produce methane. We also numerically simulate the accumulation of methane in Antarctic sedimentary basins using an established one-dimensional hydrate model3 and show that pressure/temperature conditions favour methane hydrate formation down to sediment depths of about 300 metres in West Antarctica and 700 metres in East Antarctica. Our results demonstrate the potential for methane hydrate accumulation in Antarctic sedimentary basins, where the total inventory depends on rates of organic carbon degradation and conditions at the ice-sheet bed. We calculate that the sub-Antarctic hydrate inventory could be of the same order of magnitude as that of recent estimates made for Arctic permafrost. Our findings suggest that the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be a neglected but important component of the global methane budget, with the potential to act as a positive feedback on climate warming during ice-sheet wastage.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7413/full/nature11374.html

[Gray-Wolf]

Only just picked up on this BFTV. I'd imagine that at least the southern 1/3 of Greenland has a similar potential as this seems to be the area that past 'minor' warmings have revealed? Even our viking loving bud's would have to accept that all that prime farmland is now rotted under the ice ready to out gas once temps allow?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120828135103.htm

My old Nan and Mum always complained at every Moonshot that they were altering the weather.....such forward thinkers!

[Gray-Wolf]

No news is good news.......

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=8640

[Gowon]

Good news...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

The maximum positive correlation between CO₂ and temperature is found for CO₂ lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO₂ is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

â–º The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. â–º Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. â–º Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. â–º Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. â–º Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO₂ since January 1980. â–º CO₂ released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO₂, and changes in atmospheric CO₂ are not tracking changes in human emissions.

[jethro]

That has the potential to cause a few waves.

[John S2]

Good news...

http://www.sciencedi...921818112001658

The maximum positive correlation between CO₂ and temperature is found for CO₂ lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO₂ is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

â–º The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. â–º Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. â–º Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. â–º Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. â–º Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO₂ since January 1980. â–º CO₂ released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO₂, and changes in atmospheric CO₂ are not tracking changes in human emissions.

It will be interesting to see what reputable climate scientists have to say about the methodology.

Is this latest paper another attempt at suggesting that most recent warming is natural? The methodology employed by these authors has been found to be flawed on previous occasions.

[songster]

We know why atmospheric CO2 is going up, it's because of fossil fuel use. That part at least should be non-negotiable. What mechanism do they propose to explain how temperature change one year can cause us to burn more coal and oil the next year?

[BornFromTheVoid]

As unfortunate as it is, two of the lead authors are well know deniers/sceptics and as such, they make a lot of dubious claims in their conclusions which doesn't tie up with the analysis in the paper.

Anyway, this is just one paper, perhaps it's the start of a trend towards more like it, or perhaps it's flawed and the tens of thousands of papers it goes against are correct, either way I doubt this will makes waves outside of the denier blogs, the body of evidence still lies firmly in the AGW camp.

Here are the conclusions of the paper

(1.) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2.) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3.) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4.) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5.) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6.) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently have little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7.) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8.) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appears to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

Not only are they claiming CO2 doesn't cause warming, they're also claiming man-made emissions aren't contributing much to atmospheric CO2 levels.

A quick glance through the paper doesn't show enough to back up these claims, but I will give it a more detailed read later.

Edited August 31, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[Gray-Wolf]

The sad thing is though that folk will want to read this and not the horrible truth.

We all know to grasp the nettle but how many folk have you seen do it and not just shy away.?

Sadly it is that unwillingness to accept how serious the situation is and a need to find 'better news' (how many hours must some folk spend dismissing paper after paper until they find one with a message they can handle?) that has allowed the political procrastination and so we have been allowed to slip into this horrid positive feedback loop in the Arctic which must be the first major domino to fall in a line of natural accelerators which will make the IPCC B.A.U. temp scenario look positively tame (IMHO).

[jethro]

The sad thing is though that folk will want to read this and not the horrible truth.

We all know to grasp the nettle but how many folk have you seen do it and not just shy away.?

Sadly it is that unwillingness to accept how serious the situation is and a need to find 'better news' (how many hours must some folk spend dismissing paper after paper until they find one with a message they can handle?) that has allowed the political procrastination and so we have been allowed to slip into this horrid positive feedback loop in the Arctic which must be the first major domino to fall in a line of natural accelerators which will make the IPCC B.A.U. temp scenario look positively tame (IMHO).

I guess it's rather ironic then that one of the most ardent anti AGW folk on here lives an incredibly green lifestyle. I guess as I question the degree of impact AGW may be having, I'd be considered to be one of those baddies you talk about. Again, ironically, I live an incredibly green lifestyle. People like myself and Laserguy don't need the stick of AGW to live sustainably, we just do.

How many trees have you planted in the last 12 months? How much of your food do you grow? How's the insulation on your house? Are all your appliances as efficient as possible? Do you walk whenever possible?

You and I are pretty much the same age, pushing 50; isn't it time you learnt not to judge a book by it's cover? Or better still, not judge at all.

[Gray-Wolf]

Seeing as I'd find it impossible to walk to the local shop on most days that's a bit of a moot point J'.....but thank's for asking.

[laserguy]

I guess it's rather ironic then that one of the most ardent anti AGW folk on here lives an incredibly green lifestyle. I guess as I question the degree of impact AGW may be having, I'd be considered to be one of those baddies you talk about. Again, ironically, I live an incredibly green lifestyle. People like myself and Laserguy don't need the stick of AGW to live sustainably, we just do.

Thanks for the mention! Ye - pushing 50 but I'll still be walking the 4-mile round trip to work and back tonight despite having use of a car. GW is entitled to his AGW opinions;they won't and don't affect me - it's the holier -than-thou stance which really grates. Do you have your CO2 unfriendly Grolsch delivered then,GW? Make your own - it's much more eco-friendly. Got next year's hop supply to harvest from my garden next week...

[Methuselah]

Good news...

http://www.sciencedi...921818112001658

The maximum positive correlation between CO₂ and temperature is found for CO₂ lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO₂ is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

â–º The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. â–º Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. â–º Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. â–º Changes in global atmospheric CO₂ are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. â–º Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO₂ since January 1980. â–º CO₂ released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO₂, and changes in atmospheric CO₂ are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Difficult to assess whether that's profound or whether it's codswallop...It does have the tiniest whiff of obfuscation too it, though?

[Gowon]

Difficult to assess whether that's profound or whether it's codswallop...It does have the tiniest whiff of obfuscation too it, though?

There is obfuscation on both sides of this debate.

The sad thing is though that folk will want to read this and not the horrible truth.

We all know to grasp the nettle but how many folk have you seen do it and not just shy away.?

Sadly it is that unwillingness to accept how serious the situation is and a need to find 'better news' (how many hours must some folk spend dismissing paper after paper until they find one with a message they can handle?) that has allowed the political procrastination and so we have been allowed to slip into this horrid positive feedback loop in the Arctic which must be the first major domino to fall in a line of natural accelerators which will make the IPCC B.A.U. temp scenario look positively tame (IMHO).

Listen I have no problem with the idea that man has made it a little hotter than it would be naturally but, i refuse to get worked up about it. Edited August 31, 2012 by pottyprof
Let's leave the personal stuff to PM's please. :O)

[laserguy]

GW I'm surprised you hit the 'like' button for my post above, but glad you weren't offended. Listen up - I'd be much more receptive to your ramblings if you didn't blame us deniers for the situations you speak of. Just 'cos I don't buy it, I'm not some type of crazed eco-vandal; quite the opposite. I honestly think most of us are the same. Still think AGW is cobblers,tho'....

[BornFromTheVoid]

My interpretation of GWs post, which seems to have generated some interest here, was that it was more to do with the political will of the people, and the lack of acceptance that we are having a largely negative impact on our planet, which will begin to affect ordinary sooner than many think. When we have things like the sea ice dwindling to record lows, yet the likes of Christy, Watts and Goddard making any excuses they can to say it's not actually happening, has happened before or is due to the storm in August, any and every excuse but to accept it's part of a longer term decline, largely caused by human activity.

I didn't see his post as anything about individual lifestyles. I know I don't live a very eco-friendly life.

The extent to which we live green lives shouldn't alter whether or not we accept the science of AGW imo.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you BFTV, I'm glad some folk can read what is written and not just interpret as they'd like to!

We've seen , a number of times now, that 'people power' will install massive changes in a society. If Joe P. saw what many of the concerned posters on here see, then we would have already begun in earnest to protect what we have for future generations.

It is far 'nicer' not to worry and may well be hard wired into the human brain, only responding to immediate threats (as percieved) and it is only now that we begin into the process of rapid climate shift that many are looking around for reasons. They have been kept comforted by the apparent 'confusion' of science during the past 10years. To me a spectacle 'engineered' for the masses and not a true reflection of the scientific consensus yet perpetuated by contrarians across the world wide web. Every post revealing science is challenged, every change is questioned .Most all of it in a contrarian sense and not a true sceptical one leading the lurkers to believe the subject is 'wide open' and up for debate instead of settled with only minor adjustments to be made to our understanding of the changes we see.

The climate of distrust this has engendered has had science lean toward the most conservative of forcasts lest they be castigated by the lead contrarians and there message lost beneath a tide of baseless derision. This unwritten policy has also worked against science with the apparent acceleration of impacts now being paraded as a sign that science does not 'know' what is occuring.

I do believe that history will not look favourably upon humanity through this period. I do believe that folk need search the individual conscience as to whether thay have best served their fellow man through these important years.

Which is of more use to society? A low energy lightbulb or information presented to the masses that engenders a force for change to offset the worst that science tells us to expect?

Whether that change comes through advancement of technology or societal change (or a mixture of both?) is unimportant as long as the outcome mitigates the potential for large scale disaster, unrest and poverty.